Formation of new stimulus equivalence classes by exclusion

Abstract

This study presents three experiments that aimed to show the formation of stimulus equivalence relations among stimuli that had been previously related only by exclusion. In Experiment 1, participants were trained on baseline conditional discriminations to establish two 3-member equivalence classes. Then, they were exposed to exclusion trials, without feedback, in which undefined stimuli had to be matched by rejecting the defined baseline stimuli. Finally, participants responded to test trials evaluating the emergence of symmetry and transitivity among the undefined stimuli from the exclusion trials. For half of the participants, the stimuli related by exclusion were introduced as S- stimuli in the baseline trials, whereas for the other half they were not. Further, half of the participants were assessed for emergent relations with stimuli from all the classes, whereas the other half was assessed for emergent relations with only the stimuli related by exclusion. In Experiment 2, the S- comparisons in the emergent relations test trials with stimuli only related by exclusion were stimuli from a null class. In Experiment 3, the number of exclusion trials was doubled. Across experiments, most participants showed emergence of equivalence relations among the stimuli related by exclusion. Some conditions of stimulus control associated with exclusion learning and the emergence of equivalence relations are discussed.

Transfer of baseline reject control to transitivity trials and its effect on equivalence class formation

“…One alternative explanation for responding to D and E stimuli on the transitivity‐like trials is that responses were based on exclusion. Exclusion consists of the conditional selection of a novel comparison stimulus that was not part of the conditional relations established in the baseline training (e.g., McIlvane, Kledaras, Lowry & Stoddard, ; McIlvane et al, ; Plazas & Cortes, ; Plazas & Villamil, ; Wilkinson, Dube, & McIlvane, ; Wilkinson & McIlvane, ). Insofar as the D and E stimuli were not part of the relations involved in the baseline training, responses to them on transitivity‐like trials could have been mediated by exclusion.…”

Relation between Exclusion and Stimulus Equivalence Class Formation in Auditory-Visual and Visual-Visual Matching in Preschoolers

“…It has been shown that control by exclusion can reverse the membership of preexisting classes (Meehan, 1995), and that stimuli related by exclusion might display properties in accordance with the equivalence relations (Lipkens, Hayes, & Hayes, 1993, Exp. 4;Wilkinson et al, 2009), and can be integrated to preexistent classes (Kastak & Schusterman, 2002), or extend the number of existent classes (Plazas & Villamil, 2017). In the latter study, it was found that exclusion responding could account for correct responses in transitivity test trials among stimuli that were not related among them by explicit training but they did by exclusion.…”

“…In the study of Plazas and Villamil (2017), adult human participants learned the conditional discriminations required for the establishment of two three-member classes (A1B1C1 and A2B2C2). Then they were exposed to some exclusion trials employing as defined stimuli those related in the baseline.…”

“…Exclusion performance has been readily observed in non-human animals and toddlers, but stimulus equivalence class formation has not been clearly evidenced in non-humans; however, some evidence suggests the presumed participation of exclusion in the emergence of transitivity (Plazas & Villamil, 2017). In consequence, we sought to establish if exclusion performance is a prerequisite to the formation of equivalence classes in preschoolers.…”

Behavior Science Emerges

“…But science does not stagnate. The Equivalence Relations, Relational Frames, Acceptance and Commitment literatures have advanced understanding and application far beyond 1957 to grapple with issues from prejudice to psychotherapy and beyond (Arntzen, Granmo, & Fields, 2017;Avellaneda et al, 2016;Ayres-Pereira, Canovas, Varella, & de Souza, 2018;Beurms, Traets, De Houwer, & Beckers, 2017;Bordieri, Kellum, Wilson, & Whiteman, 2016;Carp & Petursdottir, 2015;Dixon, Enoch, & Belisle, 2017;Eilifsen & Arntzen, 2017;Fox & Kyonka, 2017;Griffith, Ramos, Hill, & Miguel, 2018;Guinther, 2017;Jennings & Miguel, 2017;López-López & Luciano, 2017;Ma, Miguel, & Jennings, 2016;Maraccini, Houmanfar, & Szarko, 2016;May, Stewart, Baez, Freegard, & Dymond, 2017;Mensah & Arntzen, 2017;Mizael, de Almeida, Silveira, & de Rose, 2016;Plazas & Villamil, 2018;Rippy & Doughty, 2017;Silveira et al, 2016). Regardless of whether this work is labeled as Equivalence Relations, Relational Frames, or Acceptance and Commitment, the similarities outnumber the differences and we hope this special section paves the way for consilience between these diverse and vital research programs.…”